|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
21-10-2005, 10:51 AM | #1 | |||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Ok, as some of you know, I've got my stock standard (for now) carbied 4.1 XF, and LuvinmyEB has a JMM enhanced (just Dev 1) EB GLi. They're both auto, mine being 3 speed, hers being 4 speed.
Last time her car was run on a dyno, it put out 118rwkw according to the dyno at JMM, and that was BEFORE the extractors were bolted on. I personally have my doubts about that dyno figure, but even 110rwkw would be respectable and well within possible if we assumed a roughly 10% dyno error, which I'm sure it wouldn't be out by that far. Given that it pulled that sort of power, there wouldn't seem to be anything wrong with the engine I'd guess - massive blowby, tuning problems etc would lower the dyno figure, right? Anyway. I would have thought the EBs EFI 4.0 would get better fuel econ then the carbied 4.1, particularly with decent extractors, a decent exhaust and a pretty much new high flow cat, but with both cars driven in the same manner, the XF gets an easy 100 to 150kms more to the same amount of fuel. Given that there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the engine, would it simply be because of the shorter diff ratio (3.23:1 vs my 2.77:1), or could it be something else, like a dying/dead oxy sensor? I doubt it's the 4 speed in the EB too, if anything that holds higher gears longer then mine does and is more reluctant to kick down a gear, even with full throttle. It's odd, I always thought EFI would be more fuel efficient, particularly with a decent exhaust setup, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
21-10-2005, 10:56 AM | #2 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Id say oxy sensor, but diff ratio has a lot to do with it. What do both first gears redline at, and at what RPM do they change at WOT?
|
||
21-10-2005, 11:02 AM | #3 | ||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
Most of the driving of both cars is at light throttle, and generally the XF doesn't go above 2000rpm unless it's on a freeway, and considering the EB is driven in the same mannor, I'd guess it would be about the same, although having the overdriven 4th gear, it would sit at lower revs on the freeway I'd guess, unless the combo of the overdriven 4th plus the shorter diff ratio equal out to the same revs as the old 3 speeder with a 2.77:1 diff... But I doubt it.
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
21-10-2005, 12:01 PM | #4 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ACT
Posts: 4,028
|
What is the weight difference between the two??
__________________
Current Rides: 2000 AU 5L XLS ute; 1970 Mustang project |
||
21-10-2005, 12:41 PM | #5 | ||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
The XF is totally stock, asides froma few tiny things wich wouldn't affect the weight. So if anybody knows the weight of a stock XF GL 4.1 carb auto, and the weight of a stock EB GLi auto, we could work it out.
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
21-10-2005, 01:01 PM | #6 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,602
|
I had an XE Falcon 4.1 carby with 4 speed manual, that used about the same juice around town as my current EL XR6. On the highway, the EL is well ahead. The EB would be 100-150kg heavier than your XF I think. I know XE-EL is 200+ kg. Considering my EL is heavier and has more grunt than the XE, similar consumption isn't a bad result.
With EFI vs carby, at max throttle they'll be equally as efficient. At part throttle, EFI wins. But if the EB is coming up that much shorter per tank, I'd say there might be a small problem.
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
21-10-2005, 01:20 PM | #7 | ||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
Yeah, I suspect there must be something not quite right, the EB isn't lacking power, so whatever is causing the lower fuel consumption doesn't seem to be causing any trouble at WOT, only at part throttle, at least that's what makes sense to me. Extra weight + shorter diff explains it to a point, but I don't think it explains the entire 100-150km to a tank difference. The fuel consumption on the EB has improved quite a bit since the extractors went on, before that it was lucky to get over 400ks to a tank, now it will get 450-500kms, so it's not like it's too bad compared to some threads I've seen here where people have said they're having trouble getting 300kms to a tank, but I'm still shocked that the XF gets so much further on the same amount of fuel. So would the most likely suspect be oxy sensor?
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
21-10-2005, 01:32 PM | #8 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ACT
Posts: 4,028
|
Oxy sensor, injectors, any buildup in the fuel system, fuel and air filters, incorrect trip meter...
__________________
Current Rides: 2000 AU 5L XLS ute; 1970 Mustang project |
||
21-10-2005, 01:42 PM | #9 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,602
|
For around town, 450-500 is good. I would struggle to get 400km out of a tank just around town in typical stop/go traffic. Increasing the percentage of steady throttle highway/freeway driving and it improves markedly. While the EB has a shorter diff, the top gear is similar/taller in terms of km/h per 1000RPM. But the EB's motor has a different powerband. The XF (also my XE) would happily pull from 1200-1500 RPM and cruise at 2000RPM, where it was just starting to move into a big fat torque reserve. I know my XR6 is happier once it passes 2000RPM, this is where it really only starts, but 1500 RPM is where I'd consider it to produce sufficient torque for accelerating in higher gears like 3rd/4th. The XE/XF would run out of puff at 4000RPM, the 4.0MPFI motor would go to 5000RPM before running out of puff - and would redline at around 5500RPM. Yet it still uses similar fuel, despite revving harder and the car weighing more.
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
21-10-2005, 01:47 PM | #10 | ||
Eat more peanuts....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kingaroy, Qld
Posts: 502
|
Unless you know the a/f ratio at the relevant throttle percentage then you can only assume that one is running rich/lean, etc.
You can test the oxy sensor with a multimeter if you want. So basically you are saying the EB gets 450-500kms and the XF is getting 600kms/tank? 450-500kms in city is very common for an eseries, 600kms in city is basically in the driving to church on sunday grandpa league of fuel econ. Perhaps the XF is running very lean? The EB under the same throttle percentage will be faster than the XF. Dan.
__________________
'04 Falcon XR6T Ute, Envi, K&N filter, F6 Intake, Twin 2.5" exhaust... Formerly owned: '99 AU Falcon Ute '88 EA Falcon GL |
||
21-10-2005, 01:58 PM | #11 | ||
Rider on the storm
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 317
|
Taken from http://www.geocities.com/falconfacts/
XF; 4.1L Alloy Head 6 cyl Power: 103kW at 3750rpm Torque: 316Nm at 2400rpm Pushrod overhead valve, 2 valves per cylinder Compression ratio: 9.35:1 Fuel consumption: AS2877 City/Highway per 100km: 11.5L/8L (Falcon GL 4.1, 5 speed) - No auto stats EB; 4.0L 6 cyl (Series II) Power: 148kW at 4500rpm Torque: 348Nm at 3750rpm Overhead camshaft, 2 valves per cylinder Compression ratio: 8.8:1 Fuel consumption: AS2877 City/Highway per 100km: 12.5L/8L (Falcon GL 3.9 m/p auto) - A 4.0 ED w/ 4spd auto gets 13.8L/100km |
||
21-10-2005, 03:08 PM | #12 | |||||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
Yes, I do drive like a grandpa on his way to church on sunday, there's no reward for driving the XF hard, and considering the EB isn't my car "you bend, you spend", I also don't drive it hard either - in fact, I probably drive the XF slightly harder then the EB, seeing as it's my car. The XF will get between 550 to 600kms to a tank, occasionally slightly more then that if I really want to push my luck with the petrol gauge flashing one red bar at me. Both of those are mixed city/freeway driving, with most of it being city driving. If anything, the EB spends more time at 100-110km/h then the XF, because it's the car we usually take up to Sunbury to visit family up there, whereas the XF is the daily runabout. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
|||||||
21-10-2005, 03:11 PM | #13 | |||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
PS how would we check the oxy sensor with a multimeter?
__________________
Quote:
|
|||
21-10-2005, 05:23 PM | #14 | |||
LPG > You
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,277
|
Quote:
__________________
LPG Lovers Association President & Member #1. : |
|||
21-10-2005, 05:58 PM | #15 | |||
Eat more peanuts....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kingaroy, Qld
Posts: 502
|
Quote:
check that pic out, its under my gallery too. That is a faithful reproduction of a fine book called the Haynes Ford Falcon/Fairlane manual - greatest wad of toilet paper to be binded into a handy carry with you tear out bundle of anus accessory. Dan..
__________________
'04 Falcon XR6T Ute, Envi, K&N filter, F6 Intake, Twin 2.5" exhaust... Formerly owned: '99 AU Falcon Ute '88 EA Falcon GL |
|||
21-10-2005, 06:15 PM | #16 | ||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
Anybody got any idea how I could check to see if the XF is actually running too lean?
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
22-10-2005, 07:41 AM | #17 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ACT
Posts: 4,028
|
Quote:
__________________
Current Rides: 2000 AU 5L XLS ute; 1970 Mustang project |
|||
22-10-2005, 07:45 AM | #18 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ACT
Posts: 4,028
|
By the way The MaDDeSTMaN, are both cars driven by the same driver in the same traffic conditions to get those results???
I get better economy around town than the wife in our AU by more than 100kms a tank, but that was mainly driving to work with no traffic, and bugger all lights. A benefit of shift work.
__________________
Current Rides: 2000 AU 5L XLS ute; 1970 Mustang project |
||
22-10-2005, 07:51 AM | #19 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ACT
Posts: 4,028
|
Quote:
http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/engine/plugs.html also read: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/64378/
__________________
Current Rides: 2000 AU 5L XLS ute; 1970 Mustang project |
|||
22-10-2005, 09:26 AM | #20 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 48
|
Hmm while we're on the subject of fuel economy, is it normal for me to get 300kms per tank city driving from my XH 5.0L?
__________________
1998 XHII S Longreach V8 - 16.648 @ 133.65km/h -XR8 Rims -Blackout Tint -Pioneer HU |
||
22-10-2005, 10:41 AM | #21 | ||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||||
22-10-2005, 10:44 AM | #22 | ||||
No longer driving a Ford.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||||